Sudeep Arun Upadhyay vs The State Of Delhi

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 03 November, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010305852026
+ BAIL APPLN. 2735/20267
SUDEEP ARUN UPADHYAY .....P7etitioner
Through: Ms. Bhawna Verma, Adv. (Through
VC)

versus

THE STATE OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP
SI Sachin, PS BHD Nagar
Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Standing
Counsel, DHCLSC with Mr. Shivansh
Tyagi and Mr. Imran Khan, Advs. for
Victim
M: 987199212
Email: [email protected]

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
O R D E R
% 03.11.2026
1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), on behalf of the
petitioner, namely, Sudeep Arun Upadhyay, S/o Arun Upadhyay, seeking
grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”)
th
being, FIR No. 391/2025 dated 25 November, 2025, registered at Police
Station (“PS”) Baba Haridas Nagar, Dwarka District, Delhi, under Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 1 of 8

376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 10 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).
2. The relevant facts pertinent for the adjudication of the present
application, culled out from the documents on record, are as follows:
2.1. The FIR in question came to be registered, pursuant to a complaint
received through the Integrated Complaint Monitoring System (“ICMS”)
th
dated 20 November, 2025.
2.2. The complainant-victim, i.e., respondent no. 2, in her complaint alleges
that persons, namely, Sudeep Upadhyay, i.e., the petitioner, and co-accused,
Sandeep Upadhyay, who is the younger brother of the petitioner, had forcibly
committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her with dire
consequences.
2.3. She further alleges that the petitioner continued to have forcible sexual
intercourse on the pretext of false promise of marriage and, despite repeated
assurances, avoided marrying her. Moreover, the petitioner refused to take
responsibility for her pregnancy and threatened her and also demanded money
from her.
2.4. During the course of investigation, petitioner-accused and co-accused
preferred anticipatory bail applications. The anticipatory bail application of
the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”)
th
Dwarka Court, Delhi, vide Order dated 09 December, 2025. However,
interim protection was granted to co-accused, subject to joining the
investigation.
2.5. Thereafter, the co-accused joined the investigation, and in the course of
investigation, upon verification and interrogation of both the petitioner-
th
accused and the co-accused, the petitioner was arrested on 15 January, 2026,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 2 of 8

with the permission of the Trial Court.
2.6. Upon completion of the investigation, a Final Report/Chargesheet
th
dated 20 January, 2026, was filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) before
the ASJ, Dwarka Court, Delhi, against the petitioner, under Sections 376/506
of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and the co-accused was charge-
sheeted under Sections 376/506 of the IPC in a separate FIR.
th
2.7. The petitioner was released on interim bail on medical grounds on 30
April, 2026. However, upon dismissal of his application seeking extension of
th
interim bail, he was taken into judicial custody on 04 July, 2026.
2.8. The petitioner had also preferred a regular bail application before the
court of ASJ, Fast Track Special Courts (“FTSC”) (POCSO)-02, Dwarka
th
Courts, New Delhi, which was dismissed vide order dated 06 February,
2026.
3. The role attributed to the petitioner in the Chargesheet, are as follows:
3.1. The accused Sudeep Upadhyay, elder brother of the co-accused
Sandeep Upadhyay, allegedly subjected the complainant to continuous sexual
exploitation, criminal intimidation and forcible sexual intercourse on the false
promise of marriage during the period from 2016 onwards till 2025.
3.2. He allegedly took the complainant to hotels at Dwarka and Gurugram
and established forced physical relations with her. As per the hotel records of
Dwarka Inn Hotel, three entries reflected in the name of the accused Sudeep
th th th
Upadhyay dated 28 November, 2023, 06 February, 2024, and 28 June,
2024.
3.3. During this period, complainant-victim got pregnant and her pregnancy
th
was terminated at Venkateshwara Hospital on 19 July, 2024.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 3 of 8

3.4. The complainant’s bank statements also revealed that an amount of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) was transferred to her account from the
accused’s account, purportedly towards the expense of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy (“MTP”) procedure.
3.5. The accused also threatened the complainant-victim with dire
consequences and demanded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac
only).
3.6. The personal WhatsApp chats, bank statements, hotel records and
medical records, substantiate the allegations against the accused.
4. The Sessions Case being SC No. 44/2026 , instituted in respect of the
present FIR, i.e., FIR No. 391/2025 , is pending adjudication before the court
of ASJ, Dwaraka Courts, Delhi, and is presently at the stage of prosecution
evidence.
5. The case put forth by the petitioner in support of his application for
regular bail, is as follows:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
th
in judicial custody since 15 January, 2026, except for the period during
which the petitioner was released on interim bail on the medical grounds from
th th
30 April, 2026 to 04 July, 2026, pursuant to the orders passed by the Trial
Court.
5.2. The petitioner never misused the liberty given during the interim bail
and strictly complied with each and every condition imposed by the Trial
Court and surrendered before the Trial Court, in accordance with the orders.
5.3. The investigation has already been completed and the chargesheet has
been filed and charges have also been framed.
5.4. The entire prosecution case is founded upon documentary evidence and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 4 of 8

electronic evidence, including WhatsApp chats, call records, bank
transactions, hotel records and medical documents, all of which already stand
seized and form part of the chargesheet. Therefore, there is no possibility of
the petitioner interfering with investigation and no further custodial
interrogation is required.
5.5. Thus, the regular bail may be granted to the petitioner.
6. Per Contra , learned counsel appearing for the complainant-victim
vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations
against the petitioner are very serious in nature.
7. As per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
complainant-victim, this Court notes that, the role assigned to the petitioner
is that of the elder brother of the co-accused who subjected the complainant-
victim to continuous sexual exploitation, criminal intimidation and forcible
sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage.
8. This Court notes that the complainant-victim was 13 years of age at the
time of the first alleged incident.
9. Thus, this Court notes that the allegations against the petitioner are
grave in nature, carrying severe punishment under the POCSO Act.
10. This Court also takes note of the submission made by the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State that the present matter
pertains to the POCSO Act and that the examination of the complainant-
victim is still going on.
11. In this regard, reference may be drawn to the judgment in the case of X
Versus State of Rajasthan and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 , wherein,
it was observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 5 of 8

witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in
entertaining the bail application of the accused. The relevant portion of the
said judgment are as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc.,
once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its
witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should
be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.
xxx xxx xxx
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice
that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it
should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either
result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused.
The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the
accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into
the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the
pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the
victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that
too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified
in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the
accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Fruitful reference may also be drawn to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the Case of Neeru Yadav Versus State of U.P. and Another , (2016)
15 SCC 422 , wherein, it has been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the
concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established
fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all
cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions
and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 6 of 8

society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate
eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is
understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a
civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful
life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is
definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself.
He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the
collective. He cannot be a terror to the society; and that is why
Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and
a decade back eloquently spoke thus:-

“Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in
proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in
proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is
above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are
more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in
preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless
a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed
somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things
that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions
forge their fetters.”

xxx xxx xxx

15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that
the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the
accused . What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of
parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we
have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is
not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature
and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as
jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the
effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law
expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of
accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on
exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the fact that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 7 of 8

the evidence of the complainant-victim is still going on and next date before
th
the Trial Court is 10 December, 2026, this Court is not inclined to grant the
bail to the petitioner at this stage.
14. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are only
prima facie in nature in order to decide the present bail application. The same
shall not be considered as an expression of any final opinion as regard to the
guilt or innocence of the petitioner.
15. The present application is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026/KR




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
21:18:55
Page 8 of 8